extract_human_intent_keywords

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It lists several analysis actions but does not specify side effects, input requirements (e.g., whether at least one of url/html/text is needed), or output format. It is a read-only analysis tool by nature, but that is not explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists supporting functions. It is efficient with no filler, though the long clause list makes it a bit heavy. Still, every phrase adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's high-level capabilities but omits practical details such as how to choose among url/html/text inputs, whether inputs are mutually exclusive, and what the output structure looks like (no output schema exists). For a multi-function tool, this is a moderate gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context that the tool works on content and classifies intent, which helps interpret the parameters, but it does not elaborate on each parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Extracts Human Search Intent Keywords from content') and enumerates distinct functions (classification, query synthesis, question mining, slop detection). It clearly differentiates from sibling audit tools, which focus on technical/on-page checks rather than content intent analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the tool's purpose clear, so an agent can infer it is for content analysis rather than technical audits, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The intended context is implied, not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.